Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds 'write, altera dados', which is consistent with annotations (readOnlyHint=false) and states that this is a data-modifying operation. But beyond that, it does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or what happens to the existing schedule. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with the action, endpoint, and a behavior tag. It is compact and readable, though the '[write, altera dados]' tag partly duplicates what the annotations already convey.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given three undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse to let an agent construct a valid update request or understand the response. It explains what the tool does but not the necessary request details or expected behavior beyond the edit itself.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the body, query, or account parameters. An agent cannot determine what payload structure is expected for editing an agendamento from the description alone.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action ('Editar agendamento') and resource ('PUT /historicocobranca'), and gives the domain ('CRM de Cobrança'). It is clear that this tool updates a billing schedule, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling create/list tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The word 'Editar' implies this is for editing an existing schedule rather than creating or listing one, and the PUT method reinforces that. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over sibling tools like superlogica_historicocobranca_create or superlogica_historicocobranca_list.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.